Providing a Box-Theoretic Account for Identity/ Non-Identity Readings in ATB/‘Respectively’ Constructions

Providing a Box-Theoretic Account for Identity/ Non-Identity Readings in ATB/‘Respectively’ Constructions

This paper adopts Chomsky’s (2023) box-theoretic account in which an A’-moving element undergoes boxing or syntactic insulation, thereby resistant to undergoing any further syntactic operations like Merge; its apparent displacement effects arise not due to syntactic Internal Merge, but due to PF Externalization. Zooming in on the availability of an identity or a non-identity reading to the wh-phrase in Spec-CP in across-the- board (ATB) and ‘respectively’ constructions, I note in keeping with Gawron and Kehler (2003) that its availability is contingent on the presence/absence of the plural feature on the wh-phrase at hand. I go on to propose that the wh-phrase at hand is in fact derived from the two wh-phrases out of the two TP conjuncts via Form Set fed by PF Externalization; when they are referentially distinct, they are combined into one plural wh-phrase, whereas when they are referentially the same, they are combined into one singular wh-phrase. All in all, the interaction of boxing with Form Set makes a right cut for the availability of an identity or a non-identity reading to the wh-phrase in Spec-CP in the constructions at issue.